Content deleted Content added
Freeknowledgecreator (talk | contribs) m Undid revision 771703604 by Joefromrandb (talk) rv |
Purplebackpack89 (talk | contribs) →SOCE: sometimes, Joe, you're such a jerk to ppl that it's funny |
||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
::::{{ping|El C}} Please examine [[Sexual orientation change efforts]] and [[Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts]]. It appears Joe is indeed edit-warring after he promised not to, and in addition refusing to engage meaningfully on the article's talk page AND throwing around words like "horseshit". I have warned him about edit-warring. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">[[User:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00">p</span>]][[User talk:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">b</span>]][[User:Purplebackpack89/C|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">p</span>]]</span> 01:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC) |
::::{{ping|El C}} Please examine [[Sexual orientation change efforts]] and [[Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts]]. It appears Joe is indeed edit-warring after he promised not to, and in addition refusing to engage meaningfully on the article's talk page AND throwing around words like "horseshit". I have warned him about edit-warring. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">[[User:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00">p</span>]][[User talk:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">b</span>]][[User:Purplebackpack89/C|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">p</span>]]</span> 01:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::::The use of bad language is pretty trivial in comparison to everything else... [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator#top|talk]]) 01:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC) |
:::::The use of bad language is pretty trivial in comparison to everything else... [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator#top|talk]]) 01:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::::{{ec}} It's par for the course with him. He's very incivil to anybody who doesn't toe his line. For example, I just warned him about edit-warring. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joefromrandb&oldid=prev&diff=771702927 He reverted the edit as trolling]. If El C doesn't get back to us soon, I'm reporting Joe to AN3. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">[[User:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00">p</span>]][[User talk:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">b</span>]][[User:Purplebackpack89/C|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">p</span>]]</span> 01:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:17, 23 March 2017
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Why delete?
Because several books about Spinoza are novels or non-philosophical works! Zingvin (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Do these books have Wikipedia articles? If not, they're irrelevant. If there are such articles, creating Category:Novels about Baruch Spinoza would have been a better approach. Books about philosophers can be assumed to be non-fiction unless stated otherwise. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Susan Sontag
Can we at least not repeat Kevin Myers' criticism of Sontag's production of Waiting for Godot in Sarajevo, given that it's already included in the "Activism" section as well? Aquila89 (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- It goes without saying that content should not be needlessly repeated in articles. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- What about the rest of the section? Even if the critics have their own article, I still don't see much of a point to it. Is it really that notable that a literary critic once wrote something bad about Sontag? Negative quotes like those could probably be listed endlessly for any prominent person who expressed strong political opinions. Aquila89 (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Aquila89, looking through that section, I certainly believe it could be streamlined or cut back. But the criticism should not be simply wiped away altogether. That is not appropriate when dealing with an obviously controversial figure. It does matter if a literary critic, or anyone else who is prominent enough to have their own Wikipedia article, criticizes someone like Sontag. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that all criticism should be deleted, I'm specifically talking about the "Other criticisms" section. Look at that quote from Terry Castle; she's not even criticizing Sontag's work, she's saying that Sontag was too whiny. I really don't think that's notable. Plus, the source linked doesn't even work. Aquila89 (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Aquila89, looking through that section, I certainly believe it could be streamlined or cut back. But the criticism should not be simply wiped away altogether. That is not appropriate when dealing with an obviously controversial figure. It does matter if a literary critic, or anyone else who is prominent enough to have their own Wikipedia article, criticizes someone like Sontag. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- What about the rest of the section? Even if the critics have their own article, I still don't see much of a point to it. Is it really that notable that a literary critic once wrote something bad about Sontag? Negative quotes like those could probably be listed endlessly for any prominent person who expressed strong political opinions. Aquila89 (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Thanks for your concise and accurate post at ANI. NeilN talk to me 21:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
- Thank you, except that I perhaps don't really deserve it, as I didn't properly follow the advice given at WP:CHILDPROTECT. Still, I am glad that the right thing was done, and I'll follow the letter of the policy strictly in any kind of future situation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- And I probably made the wrong type of block. What matters here is the end result is good, thanks to you. --NeilN talk to me 21:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
SOCE
I'm even more confused now. If you have specific ideas, like the ones you mentioned, why not just add them to the article? You had specific, concrete suggestions, and they sound reasonable enough. Surely actually making these changes would serve our readers much better than a vague tag.Joefromrandb (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- The tag can stay in place until and unless substantial improvement is made to the article. Denying that the article is poor quality, by removing the tag, does nothing to improve it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Seriously, @Joefromrandb:, you undid BOTH of us? I thought you agreed to stop doing stuff like that as a condition of your last unblock after you'd been blocked for edit-warring. pbp 01:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- If there is further concern over this issue, someone could notify El C, who was the most recent administrator to block Joefromrandb. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- @El C: Please examine Sexual orientation change efforts and Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts. It appears Joe is indeed edit-warring after he promised not to, and in addition refusing to engage meaningfully on the article's talk page AND throwing around words like "horseshit". I have warned him about edit-warring. pbp 01:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- The use of bad language is pretty trivial in comparison to everything else... FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It's par for the course with him. He's very incivil to anybody who doesn't toe his line. For example, I just warned him about edit-warring. He reverted the edit as trolling. If El C doesn't get back to us soon, I'm reporting Joe to AN3. pbp 01:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- The use of bad language is pretty trivial in comparison to everything else... FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- @El C: Please examine Sexual orientation change efforts and Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts. It appears Joe is indeed edit-warring after he promised not to, and in addition refusing to engage meaningfully on the article's talk page AND throwing around words like "horseshit". I have warned him about edit-warring. pbp 01:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- If there is further concern over this issue, someone could notify El C, who was the most recent administrator to block Joefromrandb. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Seriously, @Joefromrandb:, you undid BOTH of us? I thought you agreed to stop doing stuff like that as a condition of your last unblock after you'd been blocked for edit-warring. pbp 01:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)